%0 Journal Article
%T L¡¯expertise psychiatrique entre l¡¯¨¦valuation de la responsabilit¨¦ et de la dangerosit¨¦, entre le m¨¦dical et le judiciaire. Commentaire du texte de Samuel L¨¦z¨¦
%A Caroline Protais
%A Delphine Moreau
%J Champ P¨¦nal
%D 2009
%I Champ p¨¦nal
%R 10.4000/champpenal.7120
%X L¡¯¨¦tude de l¡¯expertise psychiatrique judiciaire doit-elle ¨ºtre abord¨¦e ¨¤ partir de la probl¨¦matique de la r¨¦cidive ? ¨¤ partir d¡¯un commentaire d¡¯un article de Samuel L¨¦z¨¦, nous soulignons deux confusions ¨¤ l¡¯ uvre dans le d¨¦bat politico-m¨¦diatique actuel : entre les figures du fou et du criminel monstrueux, d¡¯une part, entre l¡¯¨¦valuation de la responsabilit¨¦ d¡¯une personne en proie ¨¤ un possible trouble mental et celle d¡¯un ¨¦ventuel passage ¨¤ l¡¯acte qui n¡¯est pas n¨¦cessairement criminel, d¡¯autre part. Ces confusions, qui se nouent autour de la notion ¨¦quivoque de dangerosit¨¦, tendent ¨¤ occulter les enjeux de l¡¯expertise tels que se les formulent les professionnels, avec leurs limites propres. Should the study of psychiatric expertise be addressed through the problem of recidivism? Commenting an article of Samuel L¨¦z¨¦, we propose to analyze two confusions in the French political and journalistic debate: first, between the   madman   and the   monstrous criminal  , and second, between two requests addressed to experts: the assessment of a maybe mentally suffering person¡¯s responsibility and his possible but not necessarily criminal acting out. We suggest that these confusions, formed around the ambiguous notion of dangerousness, are occluding the actual questions met by professionals, with their own limits.
%K recidivism
%K dangerousness
%K psychiatric expertise
%K responsibility
%K mental illness
%K r¨¦cidive
%K dangerosit¨¦
%K expertise psychiatrique
%K responsabilit¨¦
%K folie
%U http://champpenal.revues.org/7120